Lying for the Lord?

The LDS Church is currently engaged in a systematic and officially endorsed effort to misrepresent some of its teachings to the outside world.

This is not a new phenomenon. As far back as the Nauvoo period, “Joseph [Smith] publicly and repeatedly denied he was advocating polygamy” while simultaneously marrying upwards of thirty women.[1]

But attempting a similar feat in the age of the internet is a dicey proposition.

Mormons Don’t Get Their Own Planet?

I am referring to a recently released essay on the LDS Church’s official website titled “Becoming Like God.” While the essay should be commended for affirming that “divine parentage includes a Heavenly Mother,” such an admission cannot make up for the Technicolor prevarication in a different paragraph where it is claimed that “few Latter-day Saints would identify with caricatures of having their own planet.”

As an active member of the LDS Church for over 35-years, this is news to me.

A caricature is a “comic exaggeration.” I am surprised to discover at this late date that the teaching I have personally heard and read on numerous occasions, that faithful Latter-day Saints will eventually have “their own planet,” is a “comic exaggeration.” It is not an exaggeration at all, comic or otherwise. It is a fact, plain and simple.

The Church first ventured into this field of revisionist theology about a year ago when it published answers to frequently asked questions. This is found on the official LDS website in the Newsroom section, which the webpage banner proclaims is “The Official Resource for News Media, Opinion Leaders, and the Public.”

One of the questions that is apparently frequently asked is, “Do Latter-day Saints believe that they will ‘get their own planet’?” The answer given to this by the Church is simple and straightforward, if somewhat unexpected. The answer is, “No. This idea is not taught in Latter-day Saints scripture, nor is it a doctrine of the Church. This misunderstanding stems from speculative comments unreflective of scriptural doctrine.”

Just to make sure I wasn’t losing my mind, I ran a test case by asking my wife this FAQ on the Church website. I played it completely fair and asked her the same question in the same words: “Do Latter-day Saints believe that they will get their own planet?” Without hesitation, she answered, “Yes.”

So apparently there are at least two Latter-day Saints in the world who would answer that question differently.

No, wait. There are more. Those would be the prophets, seers and revelators who have taught this doctrine for over 100-years.

Just the Facts, Ma’am

Brigham Young said those who are exalted “will be prepared to frame earths.”[2] Orson Pratt taught that the faithful who rise immortal will “form and create worlds.”[3] Lorenzo Snow said glorified Latter-day Saints will “organize matter into worlds on which their posterity may dwell.”[4]

But that was a long time ago. Maybe that was just an anomaly. No, wait. There are more.

Joseph Fielding Smith wrote, “We will become gods and have jurisdiction over worlds, and these worlds will be peopled by our own offspring.”[5] Bruce R. McConkie taught regarding exalted parents, “For them new earths are created.”[6]

President Spencer W. Kimball said, in addressing the October 1975 Priesthood Session of General Conference, “Brethren, 225,000 of you are here tonight. I suppose 225,000 of you may become gods. . . . I think [God] could make, or probably have us help make, worlds for all of us, for every one of us 225,000.”[7]

On another occasion, President Kimball counseled Latter-day Saints to “grow in ability and power and worthiness, to govern such a world with all of its people.”[8]

President Kimball was the prophet, seer and revelator of the Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints when he spoke these words. But perhaps that doesn’t make a difference any longer. Maybe 1975 and 1976 are too long ago for it to count.

No, wait. There are more.

When Worlds Collide

What about contemporary iterations of this doctrine? Surprisingly, both these quotes from President Kimball are alive and well in current LDS Church manuals accessible on the official website.

Even the manual used to teach investigators and new members contains this information. From lesson 36 of the Gospel Fundamentals manual, the Preface to which avers, “The principles explained in this book are true,” we have the following: Those who dwell in the highest part of the celestial kingdom “will even be able to have spirit children and make new worlds for them to live on.”

Now hold on thar, Baba Looey! Are you saying the Church is telling the outside world that Mormons won’t get their own planet, but telling the inside world of Mormons that they will get their own planet? And that the Church has both statements at the same time on its own official website?

Like I said, playing fast and loose with the truth in the internet age is a dicey proposition.

Lesser minds would call it lying.

But is calling this pattern of deception “lying” too strong? Not if we use the definition advanced by the Church in chapter 26 of its Gospel Fundamentals manual: “When we say things that are not true, we are lying. When we tell only part of the truth, we are lying. When we lead people to believe something that is not true, we are not being honest.”

Why Lie?

It therefore seems beyond question that the Church is intentionally lying about this issue. I do not believe for one second that the anonymous “scholars” responsible for the offending paragraph in the “Becoming Like God” essay are unaware of the true state of things. Nor are those who also under official Church sanction and approval published the dissembling answer to the frequently asked question of whether Latter-day Saints believe they will “get their own planet.”

But this begs the question of why lie about this in the first place?

The most obvious explanation is that the Church is embarrassed by its belief that the resurrected righteous will create and rule over planets in the eternities, and therefore wishes to publicly deny it; that the Church is desirous of appearing more in the mainstream of contemporary Christianity.

The Law of Unintended Consequences

If the goal is to get the Gentile world to think Mormons don’t really believe this, the gambit seems to have paid off, as various news agencies widely reported the 2/27/14 Associated Press story on this official Church pronouncement: “The Mormon Church is pushing back against the notion that members of the faith are taught they’ll get their own planet in the afterlife, a misconception popularized in pop culture . . .”

So now the world thinks that Mormons getting their own planet is merely a “notion” and a “misconception.” Is this something to be cheered?

Milk before meat is one thing, but actively denying belief in the meat is another thing entirely. Are we selling our birthright for a mess of pottage?

Do Mormons not teach that one of the primary causes of the Great Apostasy was the Church’s willing compromise of revealed doctrine to conform to the philosophies of men?

Impact on Non-Mormons–What happens when non-Mormons who read the AP story discover the truth that Mormons actually do believe this? Will they not then conclude that the Church lies about its beliefs? Will this lead them to think more highly of the LDS Church? Will this lead them to have confidence in other Church assertions? Or will suspicion and distrust be bred?

Impact on Mormons–What happens when Mormons read these new pronouncements? If they are not well-versed in the historical record, will they not likely take them at face value and conclude that Latter-day Saints really do not believe they will have their own planet? Do we not face the possibility of Balkanizing belief among Latter-day Saints by creating a faction that believes the new pronouncements are correct, while leaving many others who believe the contradictory prophetic pronouncements of over a century?

And when these factions collide theologically, as collide they must, what will be the result? Unity or disunity? And when the true facts are revealed through such collisions, will the result be greater faith in the Church or less?

The Perils of Situational Ethics

This disparity between what the Church tells the “outer world” of non-members versus what it tells the “inner world” of the faithful may have more alarming consequences. Not only does the Church create an “outer/inner theology,” it also creates an “outer/inner” morality.

By telling the outside world Mormons do not believe they will have their own planets, they are leading people to believe something that is not true. But the Church teaches, “When we lead people to believe something that is not true, we are not being honest.”

The Church is thereby teaching its members that being dishonest is justifiable under some circumstances; that lying for the Lord is moral. And the Church is teaching this by its own example. But if lying may be rationalized in this manner, what other immoral acts may also be justified, so long as it is in service to the Church, and in obedience to Priesthood leaders?

A group of 120 emigrants learned the answer to this question on September 11, 1857 at a place called Mountain Meadows. If nothing else, the massacre that occurred there should be a constant reminder to Mormons of the very real perils of promoting such situational ethics.

Corbin Volluz lives in the beautiful foothills of the Cascade Mountains in western Washington state. He has been practicing law for 25-years with a focus on criminal defense and personal injury. Corbin joined the LDS Church in June of 1978, shortly after the lifting of the priesthood ban, and has been studying Mormonism ever since. He has been published in several venues, including the Journal of Book of Mormon Studies and BYU-Studies.

55 Comments

KMarkP
on April 8, 2014 at 7:42 am

Corbin, I think you misunderstand.

The problem with the phrase “get our own planet” is not that it is inaccurate (although “planets” plural might be better), but that it reduces a very complicated and exalting doctrine into an easily lampooned sound byte.
It’s not the teaching itself, but the caricature to which the church objects, I think.

The church’s statement in the FAQ saying that LDS don’t believe they get their own planets is an outright lie. When I was a mormon I believed that if I got to the top level of the Celestial Kingdom that I would become “like God”, and part of that entails having your own planets, as well as having Spirit children, etc.

However, I can understand in the essay why they say that few mormons identify with the caricatures. Maybe “caricatures” isn’t the best word to use, but I’ve seen many depictions of the concept of mormons getting their own planets, and whilst they may be funny, that’s definitely not how I thought about it when I was a mormon, and I doubt that most current mormons think about it in that way either. So saying mormons don’t identify with the “caricatures” is fair enough imo. The church’s response in the FAQ was definitely dishonest though.

The “getting our own planet” idea is A logical extension of scriptures about eternal progression, and inheriting what our Father hath. But it is NOT and never has been more than speculation (which lds are just as prone to as all other mortals). There simply isn’t a single word in any of the scriptures lds believe are the word of God that say anything about having or making our own planets. Further it is not the ONLY way we can extrapolate the few scriptures that talk about what happens in the eternities and after judgment.

The lying accusation is simply refusal to get that lds members (and even leaders) have had the very long and bad habit of thinking of things as scripture or doctrine, when they were neither (and really not even always the only way to look at what we do know from scripture and revelation), though they may be very solid possibilities or extrapolation of what we know.

Certainly the phrase “faithful Mormons will get their own planet” is not accurate.

The accurate statement is “faithful latter-day saints who receive exaltation will be able to create new WORLDS (pay attention to the plural) and populate them.”

The accurate teaching is that each exalted LDS will be able to organize or create countless planets, not just one. Therefore to say that exalted LDS “will get their planet” is not accurate, because “to get” and “to create” does not mean the same and “their own planet” (singular) is not the same to “uncountable worlds” (plural).

For this reason to say that faithful LDS people will “get their own planet” is a caricature or ridicule of the true teachings taught from the beginning in the LDS Church and stated in church manuals.

On the other hand, just for the records the manual “Gospel Fundamentals” only had 12 lessons and the manual Gospel Principles has 47 lessons and lesson 36 does not teach anything about faithful exalted LDS people creating planets or worlds in the future. Even though the quote reflects a true doctrine it was not cited correctly.

In conclusion, Mr. Volluz see lies where they are not, or simply he does not see the difference between the meanings of “to get” and “to make” and neither he can see the difference between a singular word and a plural word, in this case “planet” (singular) and “worlds” (plural).

First off, strictly speaking, chicken don’t lay eggs, but hens. Anyways, that detail can be overlooked for the sake of the comparison.

When it comes to hens laying eggs, regardless the question any fox may ask, it is already implicitly understood that any hen can lay a lot of eggs, not just one.

Taking back this comparison to the topic discussed here. When we say that faithful LDS people can be like God and get their own planet. Do we all also implicitly understand that God has created uncountable worlds and has populated them with their children, or do we all understand that of all the planets of the Universe, this one that we called Earth is the only one populated with the children of God?

Since the understanding of God may vary from person to person, it is not only important to clarify meanings of words we use here, but also necessary.

We all know hens lay a lot of eggs, Do we all human beings on this Earth believe that God has populated many worlds with his children?

On the other hand, going back to the second comparison between the fox and the hen. Strictly speaking, “to lay” is not a synonym of “to get” and even if they were, it is not important since we all know truth is hens lay eggs.

However when we say that faithful LDS people will get their own planet, do we all know that what is really believed is that they will create their own planets? The answer is no.

Not everyone knows all what LDS people believe, then, not using the right words only creates misinformation in the general public.

Anyways, thanks for the reply.

ARVapor
on April 15, 2014 at 7:11 am

I understand that the phrase “get their own planet” is certainly inaccurate. However, the thing I have a problem with is that it only says this phrase is a misunderstanding from ‘speculative comments’ not based in scripture. If the voice of the prophets, which say that exalted beings will create worlds, is not scripture, then I suppose they can’t be prophets? Plus, why would the church not even mention that prophets have been teaching that we can create worlds? It would clear up so much confusion especially within the church. Let me see, are we now no longer supposed to believe that we can create worlds?

Even if the church did not want the ‘outside world’ to know about this doctrine (I still consider it doctrine), I am still going to tell others that this is indeed what the church believes…because we DO!!

The Becoming Like God essay was the straw that broke my camel’s back and led me to officially end my membership in the church. Whether it’s lying, splitting hairs, or a change in doctrine, this was not handled in a way becoming of leaders taking their direction from Christ. If this is the true church on the earth, there would be no need for spin, for doublespeak, or any other PR trick the church is using in these essays. And if this were the true church, it wouldn’t throw good, faithful members under the bus, telling the world that these people just misunderstood or created a folk doctrine when in fact these people were believing what they’d been taught from the pulpit by prophets, seers, and revelators they’d been told could never lead them astray.

Someone in General Conference this past weekend talked about people going online and then doubting their faith because they’ve waded into “garbage.” The funny thing for me is that I lost my testimony reading LDS.org and FAIR Mormon and realizing I couldn’t do the mental gymnastics needed to believe all the contradictions.

Great post, Corbin. I’ve read/heard others trying to dismiss the church’s deception in this essay just as KMarkP does in his comment above. The church could accurately clarify this doctrine with a few simple sentences. Instead they dance around the truth and mislead to the point where those outside the faith would conclude that this is not a Mormon doctrine. All you have to do is read the press headlines to know that the church successfully deceived the non-Mormons. Unfortunately it’s just another example of the church’s dishonesty.

Isn’t it interesting how the Church does indeed appear to be embarrassed by this belief,yet they have no problem broadly proclaiming horribly outdated, downright embarrassing sexist and homophobic notions. I guess these are still acceptable in some circles, but less and less so. How long before they start backpedaling their position on homosexuality? After all, that too is not in the Book of Mormon and only in the Old Testament, which no one completely follows anyway or men would not be cutting their hair.

If the present example is any indication, the Church will water down its stance on homosexuality and women holding the Priesthood for the public while maintaining and retrenching its traditional positions on these subjects to the members.

Getting our own planet is a caricature. It would be so much more accurate to say we’ll make our own universes. Why not go all the way with our weirdness. It also makes more scientific sense to talk about creating universes, instead of just individual planets. I hate running from this doctrine, since exaltation is what we’re supposedly all about.

I absolutely agree with you. I don’t get my own planet; I get a freakin’ universe, baby. At least that’s the truth of what we’re taught. “Getting your own planet” is the view of someone who has an incredibly limited view of godhood.

I also agree that the way to approach it is to fully embrace our doctrine, none of this minimizing or back-pedaling. Why the creaping institutional cowardice?

I didn’t include this story in the blog itself, but I texted my 26-year old daughter the same question as in the FAQ on the Church website, asking her if Latter-day Saints believe they will get their own planet.

Her response was, and I quote, “If memory serves, it is planets plural. Not planet.”

I then asked her why the LDS Church is now teaching that faithful members will not get their own planet.

She responded by quoting a line from my essay that she had never read (this was last week before it was published). She texted, “This is news to me.”

I agree with Jonathan. This notion of becoming as God is one of the defining differences between our religion and others. Perhaps it is splitting hairs to say that we won’t ‘get’ our own planet but ‘create’ it ourselves. But yeah, I was a little disappointed in the dancing around that issue, yet at the same time there’s a lot we don’t know about how that will happen, thus the reticence to discuss it much.

Of course, my belief is that when we do, we’ll use matter unorganized that has been floating around for billions of years from other planets that had dinosaurs and mammoths, whose chunks and rocks and fossils aren’t being used anymore, which simply answers the question of how the earth could have been created so recently yet the matter scientifically measures as much older. There are a lot of things I don’t understand, but when I figure something out, whether or not I’m right, there’s usually an explanation that is a lot simpler than the ones everyone else is arguing about.

I am glad you are in agreement with Jonathan and me on the main point of the blog, though we may have to part company on the unrelated issue of “how the earth could have been created so recently yet the matter scientifically measures as much older.”

Though I agree the earth was created from pre-existing matter, I tend to doubt it was assembled from “chunks” like a jigsaw puzzle.

It appears to me, having closely followed the released essays (in light of everything else I’ve studied and been taught) that the church seems to think that pushing esoteric and exoteric doctrine isn’t disingenuous, and that having a wink-wink-nudge-nudge culture is somehow a manifestation of milk-before-meat-done-right. Simultaneously, it tells members to put their honest faith on show and be upfront about everything. There’s a double standard of honesty going on; a high level expected (demanded) from members who want to attain higher echelons of devotion with zero accountability or honesty reflected back from the institution. I enjoy your articles, Corbin, this one included. Thanks.

You have brought up a good point, K, that being the difference between the honesty enjoined by the Church on its members and the honesty practiced by the Church when dealing with what it sees as problematic issues.

This gets to the heart of the “inside/outside morality” I mentioned in the blog.

At some point, alert members are going to see that the Church is not being “honest” in the way it teaches its members to be, and will often follow suit.

There is a simple answer for the church on these new essays: Write them at a 5th grade level. Isn’t that the level we are supposed to write publicly read documents at? Writing in confusing terms and language, using big words that no one quite understands (as many writing in this blog have done, might I add) is good way to leave things open for future PR repair.

I love the comments from the faithful members on this blog, because it is obvious they are just as confused after reading the explanations provided by the church as I am. The only difference is that I have decided to leave the church and leave the guilt and nonsense behind. How in the world can I have true integrity knowing what I know? Should I simply bear my testimony, aka LIE, a few more times? Will that fix it all?

If no one realizes it yet, the LDS church is slowly dropping off the new essays from the “featured” page on lds.org. I wrote a question addressing this to lds.org, and was told that there just is not room to house all of the new essays on the “featured” page. With serious control from being sarcastic here, I simply can not believe that the LDS church doesn’t have the “space” to put more of the newly written articles on a very up-front page for all to see. It is simply a PR trick, where they put the revised articles in to the data base so they can state 10 years from now that they have been in plain sight all along. Tricky, tricky.

I am simply not interested in prescribing to this kind of thing. It is no different from officially stating that polygamy ended in 1890, yet not addressing and avoiding the polyandry and continued polygamy facts. Since when did a sin of omission become o.k.? It is embarrassing to me.

But in spite of the Church behaving in a way that many members see as being less than forthright, honest and ethical, I think it best to allow members the choice of whether they wish to leave as you have done, or to remain because of reasons known only to themselves.

For you to bear your testimony may amount to a lie for you. If so, I would not suggest you do so. Huck Finn noted long ago “you can’t pray a lie.” Neither should one be born as “testimony.”

The real problem isn’t whether or not we get our own planets, it’s that we’re letting men to speak for us who have no jurisdiction to do so. We’ve “followed the prophet” straight into a mess of apology and accommodation. Men like Brigham Young, Joseph Fielding Smith, and Spencer Kimball may have believed that we get our own planets, but were they actually acting as prophets when they spoke these things? Or simply in a position as figurehead? Until these men claim and provide direct revelation from the Lord in these matters, the corporate Church is right in one respect–these doctrines are simply speculative.

Now, it doesn’t mean it’s not true, or there isn’t some sort of power granted to those who attain celestial glory. After all, it’s pretty clear that through God’s infinite love, we can become like him. The kingdom of God resides in all of us, and we will inherit all he has, as Christ promised us. It is up to us to access that kingdom, and build it in this life and in the life to come. This is a basic principle of the gospel.

However, the “get your own planet” caricature is a creed–something Joseph Smith abhorred. Oddly, we’ve evolved into a Church revolving around creeds. But such limits (stakes, as Joseph called them) weren’t to be part of the organic principles of the restored gospel. We are to learn principles of the gospel, with faith in Christ, repent, and go to the Lord for further instruction. Inasmuch as we are relying too heavily upon the “prophets” we bestow with powers they don’t demonstrate, “our minds are darkened,” as Joseph taught. So whether it’s getting our own planet or some other particular doctrine members of the Church are ridiculed for believing, in the end it’s all just speculation.

I wrote a post on this topic awhile back you might enjoy, called “Follow the Prophet Endgame.”

What you say gets mostly into the issue of whether it is “really true” that Mormons get their own planets in the hereafter.

That is an issue I prefer to leave unaddressed, as I agree with you that there is little way of proving such one way or another at this stage of the game.

What I object to, however, is the Church pretending this concept is not taught in the Church, and trying to get the outside world to believe that this is a misconception foisted upon the Church in order to caricature its teachings.

Now, don’t get me wrong. This teaching has certainly been caricatured, as in the movie, “The God Makers.”

But the fact a particular teaching is subject to being caricatured does not mean it has not been taught by Church leaders, including President Spencer W. Kimball in the Priesthood session of General Conference.

In fact, some of the news articles that came out reporting on the “Becoming Like God” essay specifically refer to “The Book of Mormon Musical,” saying the idea that Mormons get their own planet is a misconception that has been popularized by that very musical.

The idea may have become popularized by the musical, and though I haven’t seen the musical yet, it is a good bet it seeks to satirize the belief.

But it doesn’t mean that Church leaders haven’t taught it for over one hundred years, and continue to teach it in Church manuals available on lds.org aimed more at the membership instead of the outside world.

Well, crap. If what I was taught in General Conference by Pres. Kimball about Worlds Without End being created by faithful Celestial saints isn’t true, then I don’t see the point in paying attention to what the current Prophet is saying. And I’m put out about this, too. I already have my future planet planned out and it is going to be a-w-e-s-o-m-e. All the best of living in a HOA controlled neighborhood without having to pay the extra fees or be hounded by obnoxious neighbors who need to get a life. Clean streets, clear skies and all food will be free to everyone. What’s not to like?

Also, if the planet thing isn’t the official word now, what about the dress standards that we all know about? I’m missing out on my last few years of looking good with multiple earrings and tattoos. Maybe I should just get brave and go get the sweet tattoo I’ve always admired. Then years from now, when the official word about the trashiness of tattoos changes, I won’t be too old to enjoy it.

This is the exact point, isn’t it? If we take what the Church is saying to the outside world as the actual doctrine, it makes everything said by past leaders and presidents obsolete.

This leads us to question what teachings being given today by present leaders and presidents may be thrown under the bus tomorrow.

Some time ago, Elder McConkie told the Church to forget everything he or anybody else had said that conflicted with the 1978 revelation lifting the ban on black men having the Priesthood or black people going to the temple.

This made people wonder what teachings are we receiving today that may meet the same fate.

In other words, what are we being told today is “eternal truth” that tomorrow we will be told to “forget about”?

Kiwi57, I think it is too strong a description to call it lying, too. I don’t believe there is intent to deceive. I believe that anything that goes up on the official site of the LDS church has to be severely limited because there really are a lot of people who want to use it to further ridicule or attack the church. I don’t think it is wrong to flat out lie to someone who you know is trying to hurt you (although in practice I’m a terrible liar). Unfortunately, there are even more faithful and questioning believers who read these pages, so the church has the unenviable job of writing what amount to sound bites to treat complex and beautiful topics. That’s a really hard problem. I agree with Korbin in that they didn’t do the best job possible on this topic. I disagree with him that it is lying. I wish the church had responded by embracing our strangeness. Something like “We will make universes. And so will you when you live in a way to become like God. What do you think we will do for eternity? Bask in God’s glory and sing hymns?” Of course, they would have to remove the sarcasm.

After re-reading my original comment, and after reading the responses, I went back and read the Church’s article. For the life of me I cannot find any evidence of the church “lying” or even distorting the truth. The truth is, the doctrine of exaltation has always been a little fuzzy, and because there have been Sunday School teachers, Seminary teachers, Bishops and General Authorities who have gone beyond the scriptures and made their own interpretations of the doctrine, we are left with a folk doctrine that is easily misunderstood and too easily caricatured.
I just can’t see the article in question hiding anything. Here is a quote from it that says pretty much what I wrote in my opening comment.

“…scriptural expressions of the deep peace and overwhelming joy of salvation are often reproduced in the well-known image of humans sitting on their own clouds and playing harps after death. Latter-day Saints’ doctrine of exaltation is often similarly reduced in media to a cartoonish image of people receiving their own planets.

A cloud and harp are hardly a satisfying image for eternal joy, although most Christians would agree that inspired music can be a tiny foretaste of the joy of eternal salvation. Likewise, while few Latter-day Saints would identify with caricatures of having their own planet, most would agree that the awe inspired by creation hints at our creative potential in the eternities.”

My confusion comes from simple facts that I once testified of as a Gospel Doctrine teacher. Several times over I have heard that new revelation received by the prophet and his apostles can be considered modern day “scripture”. From your comments, it appears to me that all of the references Corbin displayed in his original posting made by prophets and apostles in the past regarding “exaltation” are now simply “folklore”, and are not accurate. It must be a bummer for those who have believed such things for 50-60 years. With this in mind, which messages do I believe now? General Conference 1974 or General Conference 2014?

The problem I am having with the church right now is this doublespeak that is so prevalent. Are they lying? It’s hard to tell, honestly. The church will speak up and defend anything that someone uses out of context in order to have their original message prevail. From this article, it is obvious to me that they will speak up to defend the new way of thinking by taking their own messages out of context. It is simple religious & political algebra, nothing less.

We are not just talking about “Sunday School teachers, Seminary teachers, Bishops and General Authorities” who have taught this.

Exhibit A in my blog is President Spencer W. Kimball, sustained at the time as prophet, seer and revelator to the Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints, teaching this doctrine expressly during Priesthood session of General Conference.

It is not so easy for me to get around this fact.

One of the problems I have with the new essay is it does not mention President Kimball by name, or any of the other presidents and Church leaders.

The result is we have an anonymous essay published on the Church’s official website throwing President Spencer W. Kimball under the bus, and saying, “This misunderstanding stems from speculative comments unreflective of scriptural doctrine.”

So the Prophet of the Church speaking in Priesthood session of General Conference is now considered “speculative?”

Who are these anonymous essay writers who dare say such a thing?

And why is the Church authorizing such things to be published on the Church’s official website?

I have not read the entire article and I have not read any of the posts, so please forgive me if my question has been answered.

Would you please describe what you mean when you say we will get our own planet? I am not asking you to give quotes, as that does not answer the question. I want your thoughts, original words, to explain your understanding.

Thanks for your question. As I understand it, you are asking me what I mean when I say “we will get our own planet.”

I actually do not say that, so this is a bit of a challenge.

The blog is not about what I mean when I say anything, but why is it the Church is saying one thing to the public and another thing to the membership as regards this issue.

If you are asking me what others mean by this question, I could not tell you.

But your question raises an interesting point.

In the FAQ quoted above, the question about whether LDS believe they will “get their own planet” is not really a question from somebody else at all.

Rather, it is a question put into the mouth of fictional interrogator; and it is put there by the person who is planning to answer it.

In other words, the same anonymous author on the FAQ page of lds.org gets to not only answer the question, but also to ask it.

This puts the anonymous author in the catbird seat.

He or she can phrase the question exactly how they want, so that their answer of “no” can be justified in their mind as being accurate.

It is likely the person who wrote that FAQ believed as Mormons have been taught for over a hundred years that they will “create” their own planet(s), and so, in order to avoid having to come clean with the truth, the author intentionally did not frame the question in that way.

In other words, the author did not frame the question as, “Do Latter-day Saints believe they will create their own planets and people them with their spirit children and rule as a god over the planet?”

The author did not do this because the author did not believe he or she could give a “no” answer to this.

You see, it is the “no” answer that is driving the formulation of the question.

Therefore, the author framed the question as “get” so that a “no” answer could be given.

This is further evinced by the use of quotation marks around the phrase “get their own planet” in the FAQ.

It is the type of word parsing we expect from lawyers.

And it is, of course, a lawyer who is unpacking it.

The deception occurs when the author who creates the question does it in such a way that a “no” answer may be technically accurate, but the question serves to make the unwary reader think that the “no” answer means more than it technically means.

We see this often in young children.

Dad–“Junior, did you get into the cookie jar?”

Junior–“No, Dad, I didn’t.”

The truth is, of course, that Junior was nicking cookies all day long from the cookie jar, but Junior didn’t actually “get into the cookie jar” with his entire body, so his answer is technically accurate.

When Dad finds out later that Junior has been grabbing cookies, Dad confronts Junior with his lie.

Junior–“But I didn’t lie. You asked if I had been ‘getting into the cookie jar,’ and I hadn’t. I only stuck my hand in.”

I really could catch up on the extensive comments here, my own contribution may be redundant. To begin, frankly the most interesting part of the controversy, as you present it, is you. I'm curious about where you suppose yourself to be coming from, here? You've introduced yourself as an active Mormon. I gather that you are also a lawyer (the relevance of this, being that you are probably pretty good at argument, and indeed argue about things professionally). I do wonder if you fully intend to do whatever it takes to be excommunicated. That's putting my question baldly. I mean, it's a simple question. Maybe yes, maybe no. Supposing that you're appalled at the suggestion, then let me tell you that I don't blame myself for getting the wrong idea. Now, I'm a lasped Mormon (born/raised), and I think I'm probably, at this stage, about 100% an atheist. I don't believe in God, or in any afterlife. So don't worry about offending me. Worry about the fact that there is such a thing as an apostate. And, there is really nothing amiss, when apostates get excommunicated. This is perfectly in order. You may not see the relevance of the point, but perhaps you're familiar with stories like about the guy who wrote lots of letters to newspapers all over the world, talking about the Mountain Meadows Massacre, and about church leaders lying about when polygamy actually started being forbidden, for example. Always he peppered these edifying missives with protestations that he was not an apostate. You see, that's part of the apostate schtick. It's in the script of being an apostate, to insist that you are not. A tricky conundrum, perhaps you feel like you've been accussed of being a witch, let's see if he floats! Nevertheless, I am completely in earnest.

My point, you understand, is not that church leaders never lied about this, that, & etc. My point is that if you claim you are not an apostate, that doesn't mean you're not an apostate. Perhaps I have the greatest respect for apostates, but I do not have respect for delusion. Are you kidding yourself, here? Remember that you have no tolerance for lying. Are you lying? About being an apostate. Generally, people are not falsely accused of this, have you noticed? And notice, that I'm accusing you of this. Go ahead and protest. That is what an apostate would do.

Now, I'm satisfied with my reasons for not starting with another point, that I mean to get to, which is that I think you got off the dime a bit too quickly on this notion that Mormons are lying about whether they expect to get their own planet. I'm reminded more generally, of the way that Hinckley was accused of lying by some antiMormons/apostates(they do exist, welcome to the club), when he answered some questions about polygamy, about whether people expect to become Gods, etc. He had appeared on Larry King, for example. There is a simple logical paradox in asserting that the prophet is lying about Mormon doctrine, but nevertheless this accusation was made. As you are a convert, I think you may find that you have not grasped all the possibilities, here, as far as how Mormons may be comporting themselves towards 'official doctrine'. As I understand, the Mormon church is addressing what is being called the "cartoonish image of people receiving their own planets". Now, I think you may be missing that it's possible to retain some ambiguity, here. Simply making a slogan out of the notion that members of the faith are taught they'll get their own planet in the afterlife, is definitely misleading, in my view. You can cherry-pick some Brigham Young quotes from the Journal of Discourses or whathavyou, but the church has a big gathering every six months as you know, presumably you follow those sermons. I doubt VERY MUCH that anybody has mentioned the idea of getting a planet at general conference in 30 years. I'm not denying that such a concept has ever been mentioned, but I think I also am not quibbling. Remember, I AM AN ATHEIST and an intolerant one too, you moron. The problem here any way you slice it is not that there is only one possible interpretation of the verses about Kolob. This is a fascination that crops up periodically, I've heard of it. There is indeed some obscure verse about it. It has a permanent place on Mormon FAQ pages. But you are not a bigger expert on church doctrine than the church. This anxiety about being lyed to, may indeed be a big issue in your life, I don't know. Let me simplify things for you, there is no God. Mormonism is a ludicrous as Catholicism or whathaveyou. The point here is not that Mormonism isn't ludicrous. You should be ashamed, it's totally ludicrous. Have a little self-respect, how can you be Mormon what will people who are smarter than you think? And I know the answer to that question. But that's not the point. The point is what are you playing at. The notion that the church is lying is apostacy. Now, this is not hysterical finger-pointing, I'm just defining a term. I invite you to reflect on a simple matter. What is your definition of apostacy? Note, that I'm not angry, I'm just trying real hard to make myself understood. Yes?

Months late, so people may not be following this and you may not get a response, but if you’re trying real hard to make yourself understood and point out how many things aren’t the point, and several things that are the point, and insult the person you are trying to talk to throughout the whole process… probably not the wisest way to go about trying really hard to be understood.

‘Milk before meat is one thing, but actively denying belief in the meat is another thing entirely. Are we selling our birthright for a mess of pottage?

Has the Church learned nothing from the Paul H. Dunn debacle?

Do Mormons not teach that one of the primary causes of the Great Apostasy was the Church’s willing compromise of revealed doctrine to conform to the philosophies of men?’

First, let’s deal with the phrase ‘milk before meat’. As I understand, this is used in missionary training. The idea, here, is one of teaching the simplest, easiest, least controversial teachings of the LDS Church to start with. The stuff that’s easiest to digest. Also, the phrase is extremely popular with antiMormons, where the emphasis falls on the idea that converts are only introduced to the “meat” of Mormonism once it’s harder for them emotionally, psychologically, and socially to get out.

I’m not particularly exercised, btw, to deny the differences between what Mormons say amongst themselves and what they say publicly to outsiders. Say, for example, that God is married and we all have a Heavenly Mother. This is a belief isn’t discussed directly in Mormon scripture. But, a few Mormon leaders have discussed it directly over the years.

What about the so-called Paul H. Dunn debacle. From which that church has perhaps learned nothing. I think among Mormons, as opposed to antiMormons (who give this matter plenty of bandwidth), the matter may not be familiar, but Dunn was a high-ranking leader in the LDS Church who described how he had played baseball for the St. Louis Cardinals. That he’d pitched to Joe DiMaggio and Ted Williams and rubbed elbows with Stan Musial. He also told stories about his service in World War II. He said that he was one of six soldiers out of his battalion of 1,000 to have survived the war, etc. But, Dunn had never played for the Cardinals, etc.

This is supposedly a ‘debacle’, what does this mean? I don’t gather, actually, that anyone was really that upset with Paul H. Dunn to begin with. I think this might sort differently, if he had been a paid priest or theologian. I’ve stood behind podiums, I’ve told stories I pulled out of my guts, hoped they’d bring people to tears, told them hard. If you can deliver, you must — everyone is looking to you. Apparently, this may require stories about, like, the unstoppable star athlete, the faithful war buddy, the beautiful tragic dead girl or such. If I have learned the right lesson, that is, from the debacle of Paul H. Dunn. He was using gross exaggerations in his talks.

What is the need to be so dramatic about this, –the guy was not a prophet or even an apostle. He was a General Authority, though he was released from his position. These were lies. They were, I suppose, crafted to make him look grandiose. I might say ‘obviously’. He said he was a professional ball player and a war hero. He fabricated things. Obviously. But also, it was dealt with.

To introduce this w/all the thunder about ‘are we selling our birthright for a mess of pottage?’ is rather provocative. Isn’t it supposed to be provocative? And, what is it intended to provoke? Not to mention the use of the phrase ‘the Great Apostasy’.

I realized that I insulted Corbin’s intelligence. You respond to my claim that I’m trying real hard to be understood, but lets put this in context. I said: ‘I’m not angry, I’m just trying real hard to make myself understood’. Then, what is it that I’m trying to make understood? But, if I answer that question, then it won’t be understood. You have to guess. This is why I keep saying that this/that is not the point, while trotting out ‘thisisthepoint’ but not ‘thisisthepoint’, because I understand something of rhetoric.

I want ‘rhetoric’ to be understood. I mean to refer to the ancient art, here. I’m not Dickens, or Shakespeare, but if I was, I’d think that lawyers are in the devil’s profession. I’m willing to defer to lawyers about what profession they take themselves to be in. The best arguments make use of shared assumptions. It’s often hard to find this common ground. I’m not interested an “us-versus-them” sort of affair, or debate. Somebody who disagrees is the enemy whose inferior arguments must be ground into the dirt. Ridiculing or attacking these mistaken beliefs is, perhaps, the most effective way to “win” the argument. These are means of persuasion.

There are means, that constitute good rhetoric, and there are means, that constitute good manners, and there are means that consistute both. Whether I want to convert you to Mormonism, or the opposite, disabuse you of your Mormonism, I’d be trying to convince you, I suppose, of what I believe. But I’m not trying to do this. That’s why, for me, a poind of verbal abuse may come in useful. You see, people who feel insulted become unneccessarily defensive. I think you meant largely to tell me this, but I already know this.

Why would I want to make somebody unneccesarily defensive? What’s the practical reason? Well, firstly, I don’t simply seek to “win” the argument for the sake of winning. My point (as I like to say), is that the point isn’t merely to win the debate. I realized that my point was unfamiliar, but I’ll do my best to some it up very briefly:

We have all heard, at some point in our lives, a particularly eloquent speaker. That speaker had good rhetoric. And as likely as not, that speaker was an apostate.

This just reinforces my experience of L-d$,inc 'leaders' as liars. They are a PAID ministry and even lie about that.
Nothing was as sweet as finally getting a job outside Utah and leaving moronicPriesthood Central.

Doctrine: we will inherit all our Father has if we remain worthy and successfully complete our journey on this mortal realm.
We cannot say that things posted on LDS.org are apocrypha: they are released under the direction of the First Presidency and the Twelve. And the recent essays have not come out (please allow me to speculate) to explain things to the world: they are a way the Church is trying to explain things to an ever increasing part of its membership which is permanently questioning doctrine, old and new.
That makes me think of what Lehi taught his children through his vision in 1 Nephi 8: they wandered into strange paths, and were lost. Or is that another deceiving statement from a presiding liar?
Speculation: Church leaders are hard-nosed paid clergymen who are on permanent vacation around the globe. Fact: Elder Scott toured my in-laws’mission in 2010. After a 5-hour car trip back from a zone conference, Elder scout asked my father in law to stop by a grocery store so he could buy a couple of bottles of water. He was questioned why he would not just drink the hotel’s bottled water. He said, “oh, no, it is way too expensive and I ought not to spend the Lord’s money like that”. This is a nuclear physicist who would have all the right to brag about it…
In the end, I will have to agree with bro. Cannon: we should stick to our own weirdness, as the world could care less about our doctrines. And, if this is supposed to be a place to discuss how to make or faith more rational, we should be aware of rhetorical pitfalls.

I love your site! Just found it. I know that this response is over a year late, but still wanted to comment on it. I think you are spot on in your analysis. Another instance of deceit is fairly recent where the Church said that all of excommunications were done by the local leadership…that the General Authorities never get involved. That was a lie, for sure!!

I noticed that none of your quotes supporting the idea of “getting our own planet” come from canonized scripture. They only come from teaching manuals, which are not binding, like scripture is. Besides, the Gospel Fundamentals is outdated and is no longer used to teach Sunday school. Now the Gospel Principles is used instead and that manual says nothing about creating or ruling worlds. So, you did not quote scripture in support of the idea of getting our own planet. You quoted manuals containing “speculative comments unreflective of scriptural doctrine.” Being LDS, you should know that teachings do not become binding doctrine unless they’ve sustained by the First Presidency, Quorum of the Twelve, and General membership of the Church. None of those teachings you quoted have ever gone through that process and therefore, they are not binding doctrine. I’d also like to point out that when Spencer W. Kimball talked about creating worlds during General Conference, he said, “I think.” He did not say, “The Lord revealed to me that He will make worlds for all of us.” Therefore, that comment was simply President Kimball’s personal opinion and not revelation from God. There is nothing in the Book of Mormon, D&C or Pearl of Great Price that supports the idea of getting our own planet. In fact, I would argue that that idea is contradictory to our Standard Works. In D&C 76, it says that all worlds are created “by, through, and of Jesus Christ.” If Christ created all the worlds, that implies that they are His. So, no planet will ever belong to us because all the planets already belong to Jesus Christ. In D&C 132 it does talk about becoming gods and having spirit children, but it doesn’t say anything specifically about creating worlds and I think there’s a reason for that. Because since all planets are created by Christ, He will be the one who creates those worlds for our spiritual offspring, not us. Like I said before, D&C 76 says that all worlds are created by Jesus Christ and I don’t see any reason to believe that it will be any different after we die. If you can use the Standard Works to argue against anything the church has published or anything a former prophet has said, the Standard Works takes precedence.

The Barker Brothers’ Projects

“…we are asking our Church leaders to inquire of the Lord if the one year wait on the temple sealing can be changed…”

“In the end, we will remember not the words of our enemies, but the silence of our friends.” Martin Luther King Jr.

These videos were created for Latter-day Saint parents and allies to voice their love for their LGBT brothers and sisters, sons and daughters. They want to give a message of comfort and support to other parents who are navigating the difficult conflicts that can arise in families around this issue.

“Cogito!” (“I think!”) follows the intellectual adventures of a recovering academic outside the walls of academia.

Quote of the Month

"It is not as a child that I believe and confess Jesus Christ. My hosanna is born of a furnace of doubt." (Fyodor Dostoevsky)